Dean B. Deppe, «Markan Christology and the Omission of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1», Vol. 21 (2008) 45-64
In the last years a new consensus has arisen in textual critical circles that favors the omission of 'Son of God' from the prologue of Mark’s gospel.
The new angle by which I want to approach this problem is to investigate its significance for Markan Christology. I will argue that the shorter Markan prologue, 'The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ' does not sufficiently capture Mark’s theology of the person of Jesus. The paper includes two sections, the first discussing Markan Christology and the second evaluating the textual evidence. In the Christological section I first challenge the assertion that Peter’s confession of Jesus’ Messiahship (8:27-30) is the turning point of the Gospel of Mark. Then I demonstrate that an additional title like suffering Son of Man or Son of God is necessary to adequately capture Mark’s Christology. Finally, I argue that Matthew and John have similarly positioned crucial Christological titles in the prologues of their gospels. In the textual critical section I provide evidence for the inclusion of 'Son of God' at Mk. 1:1 and argue that the omission of this title in a few manuscripts must have occurred through periblepsis occasioned by homoioteleuton.
57
Markan Christology and the Omission Of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1
The major uncial documents A, B, D, W deriving from the fourth and
fifth centuries all contain “Son of God†as well as other documents from
the Caesarean text type like f1 and f13. From this evidence even Peter
Head has to admit that “there is no doubt that in terms of manuscript
evidence and geographical distribution it is superiorâ€37.
The omission of “Son of God†from Codex Sinaiticus38 was recognized
as a faulty reading even before the manuscript was placed in circulation.
As Skeat and Milne convincingly maintain, “These early corrections,
whoever actually penned them, can all be recognized with ease and cer-
tainty as the product of the scriptorium, and as all are in consequence
contemporary with the main script, they stand in this respect on more
or less the same footing for the purpose of textual criticismâ€39. Thus the
omission of “Son of God†was recognized as a faulty reading “before the
manuscript left the scriptoriumâ€, a conclusion to which both Lake and
Metzger concur40. Even Adela Collins who argues for the omission of
the title “Son of God†maintains that the manuscript from which Codex
Sinaiticus was copied contained this reading41.
Regarding the church fathers, it must be admitted that some church
fathers living both in the East in Alexandra and Caesarea (Origen, Basil,
Cyril of Jerusalem) and in the West in Lyons (Irenaeus) quote the short-
er text. Peter Head42 contends that the patristic support for the longer
reading is limited almost entirely to the Latin Fathers. For instance,
Irenaeus’ support for the longer reading is preserved only in Latin (HE
3,10,6; 3,16,3) whereas the Greek in 3,11,8 supports the short reading.
However, even Head admits that Greek patristic support for the long
reading is found in Severian (d. 408) and Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444).
In addition, Burgon calls attention to Porphyry (270), Victor of Antioch,
Pseudo-Athanasius, and Photius as well43.
Since Origen (d. 254) supports the short reading both in his work in
Alexandria (cca 226 Comm. John 1:13; 6:24) and Caesarea (cca 240 Con-
Head, “Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1â€, 623.
37
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, tr. Erroll F. Rhodes.
38
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1989) 107 document that Codex Sinaiticus is filled with
numerous singular readings and careless errors.
T.C. Skeat and H.J.M. Milne, Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus (London:
39
British Museum 1938) 40.
Helen Lake and Kirsopp Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus: The New Testament,
40
the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas (Oxford: Clarendon 1911) xxii and
Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration, 2nd ed. (Oxford: University Press 1968) 46.
Collins. “Establishing the Textâ€, 116.
41
Head, “Text-Critical Study of Mark 1.1,â€624.
42
J. W. Burgan, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established
43
(London: George Bell and Sons 1896) 286.